Comments on Sarah's The Fourth Amendment

Sarah is absolutely correct when she says the fourth amendment is being violated by President George Bush. It wasn’t right when President Bush instructed the National Security Agency to authorize wiretapping of American citizens without court warrants. It violates the people’s Civil Liberties (which are the people’s protection from the government). I know this is a time of war, but that doesn’t give the president the right to disobey the law.

The two new bills concerning the American voting system in Abroad should be taken seriously.

Some Americans abroad; for instance, the soldiers in Iraq often feel that their vote is not important and that they aren't appreciated. They also feel frustration. In a federal study “in September found that barely one-third of the nearly one million absentee ballots requested by Americans overseas in 2006 were actually cast or counted; an estimated 4 million to 6 million Americans — civilians and in the military — live and work abroad”.

However, in the election of 2008, they have high hopes that their votes will count. Even last month, an organization called Overseas Vote Foundation made a website for voting assistance for the people abroad. The new software that was introduced "made it rapid, simple, and almost foolproof to register from abroad). Even the pentagon who didn't support the issue of voting will update their voting assistance website. " And the Pentagon, after years of costly and uneven experimentation, plans to inaugurate next month an updated voter-assistance Web site that eventually will allow overseas voters from some states to download ballots, and not just registration and ballot-request applications".

In addition, two new bills were introduced. "Members of a new Americans Abroad caucus in Congress, which has tripled in size since its formation last spring, have introduced two bills aimed at simplifying voter registration, expanding voter education, and ensuring that expatriates’ ballots are counted".
The first bill “The first bill would, among other things, prohibit states from refusing balloting materials because they are generated by a computer program or not printed on a specific type of paper, and extend voting rights to Americans born overseas who have never established American residency”. The second bill also known as the Honda bill would “ban states from requiring the witnessing or notarization of ballot-return envelopes, long a problem in remote areas; to require that passports include information on absentee voting; and to create a $5 million grant for nonpartisan organizations to assist overseas voters”.

In conclusion, with these new bills, the Americans living in abroad will have a better way of getting their votes in, “a dozen states will allow voters to scan a completed ballot-request form and e-mail it”, and “some counties will be able to e-mail blank ballots”.

Furthermore, the Americans in abroad would be relieved from their frustration, and have confidence in their voting.

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/washington/29vote.html?_r=1&ref=washington

Comments on Isidros Government concerning the War in Iraq

I agree with your take on the war in Iraq. I believe this War shouldn’t have started in the first place. It is great that you wrote the effects on the United States. This War started 4years ago (on March 20, 2003). And we are still dealing with this conflict. Like you said the war created a fear in the people of the United States because it was said the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This war also rose up quickly because of the issue of September 11.

Furthermore, with this War in Iraq the U.S. and Iraq are paying for it in a bad way. Like Isidros said, the United States is paying for it in terms of national debt and the death of our soldiers. I agree with Isidros when he said that the War is costing us billions of dollars, and that the money being spent on Iraq can be used on health care or rebuilding New Orleans. In addition to that innocent lives are been taking because of the mistake of going to war. We lose innocent people both Americans and Iraqis everyday.

In conclusion, the War in Iraq is a critical issue that should be paid more attention to. With the way the conflict is going, it is only going to get worse. So like Isidros said the United States should try its best to stop the problems. I am in support of that also but how will it be done?

Whatever the solution of this issue might be, it is easier said that done!

Isidros post can be found on http://isidrosgovernmentreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/war.html

Why the Foreign Service Officers should be angry at the new Iraq policy that the State Department proposed

The Foreign Service Officers in Iraq has the right to be upset at the new State Department Policy that was proposed concerning Iraq. This Policy says that they could either stay in Iraq or put their jobs at risk. They gave them no choice. That is not only the negative side of the story, they weren’t even told about the change in matter. It was said that the Foreign Service Officers weren’t told about the change in policy directly, but heard it from a news organization last week. Upon hearing this news, they called it a “potential death sentence”. In showing how upset the officers were; One veteran of the Foreign Service left some comments and said that “it is one thing if someone believes in what is going on over there and volunteers, but it is another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment, I am sorry, but basically that is a potential death sentence and you know it, who will raise our children if we are dead or wounded?”. Another office said that “the rule should consider the dangers of a war zone, lack of security and regular rocket attacks on U.S. personnel”.

With all of these outbursts from the officers, Harry Thomas (Foreign Service Director General) said that the announcement made last week would inform 200 people as prime candidates and the selection would be done by Thanksgiving. Harry Thomas also said that the “Personnel chosen would be given 10 days to reply and unless they had a valid medical reason to refuse, those who decline could face dismissal”. Regarding that comment said by the Foreign Service Director General, it shows that they don’t care about how the Foreign Service Officers feel about the matter, they just want to get the supposedly job done regardless of any opposition. Like Thomas said, “We cannot shrink from our duty, we agreed to worldwide availability”.

To conclude this, because the Personnels agreed to “worldwide availability”, that doesn’t give the Director General or whoever is in charge of the affairs the right to put the officers where ever they want without the officers knowing about it. It was wrong what the State Department did on this issue. Next time, the person in charge should let the Foreign Service Officers know the step they were or are going to take because the officers are humans like everybody else, they have feelings, and loved ones who cares about them.
The New Iraq policy prompts angry words at the State Department article can be found on cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/state.department.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCText

President Bush calls for change in the Military Disablility System

President Bush's Reform on the Military Disability System Nytimes.com


President Bush spoke about the changes that should be made on the Military Disability System on Tuesday, October 16. The President said that the system is old (it is an outdated system) and needs to change to meet the demand of the new world. He said that the military disability system had “fallen behind the times and had left too many disabled soldiers falling through the cracks”. The President said this because “Medical advances have enabled battlefield medics and hospitals to provide our wounded warriors with care that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago”.

This issue occurred to President Bush because the former Senator Bob Dole and former secretary of health and human services Donna Shalala recommended it. In addition to that the “commission that included disabled veterans and the wife of a disabled veteran, was appointed after articles in the Washington post exposed veterans living in shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center”.

Despite all of that, the proposal that the President sent to Congress was very reasonable. The proposal said that the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense Department would have the authority to determine the levels of benefits and care that the injured soldiers received. President Bush also said that in his document that the agencies’ authorities would be separated and that “soldiers determined to be permanently disabled would move into the V.A. system, and receive care and compensation based on their loss of earnings and the impact of their injuries on their quality of life”. The President’s proposal also stated that “In an effort to remove the stigma from soldiers who might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the president’s plan would allow all soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to seek evaluations for the disorder, without having to first prove they have cause for feeling stress”.

Furthermore, President Bush says that this issue is very urgent and needs to put into law. However, few weeks ago, some members of the Democrats and Republicans said that the President’s administration was “not fast enough to address the problems identified by the commission”. Paul Rieckhoff (executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) even said “we were frustrated that it took so long, but it’s good to see the President stand up and address it publicly and start to drive the train forward”.

Although, some people are saying that this proposal is taking so long to go into effect, but the President can’t do it all. Congress also has some saying in the matter.

Should President Bush veto the new SCHIP bill that the senate just passed?

President George W. Bush threatened to veto the SCHIP program found on BBC NEWS

On September 28, 2007, the senate passed a bill "State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)". This bill is facing a veto from Bush. “Mr. Bush has threatened to veto the bill which he argues takes the program beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.” However, this renewed bill will focus on the higher income households; the majority of the senate (mostly democrats) are in support of that.
The supporters of this renewal of the bill said that “the extra money would come from raising taxes on tobacco products, including tax on a packet of cigarettes rising by 61 cents to $1 and that the extra funding would increase enrolment from the current 6.6 million children to 10 million, and dramatically reduce the number of uninsured children in the US, put at about nine million.” So this regulation is going to be based on taxes.
Inspite of that, the democrats are using this regulation to win more votes in their upcoming elections. “The legislation's backers of attempting to win political points ahead of 2008's presidential and congressional elections”. Thus this scheme is mostly beneficial to the middle class. As a result of that, the lower working class will be the ones that it would hurt the most.
With all that been said, the purpose of the SCHIP was to help working families who could not afford private health insurance but who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid - the government health care program for the poor”. The SCHIP hasn’t even covered all the kids who are eligible for it. So why renew it if it is not going to help the main targets?
I totally agree with Bush's plan and I think he should veto this bill because the renewed bill will target the wrong people and it won’t help the people who needs it the most. In other words, with the renewal of this bill, the middle class families would be more likely to drop their private insurance plans, and this will lessen the working lower class families’ chances to SCHIP.
I do hope that President Bush’s idea to veto this bill will go into effect!

Course change in Iraq

Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq found on Cnn.com

In this article, the ranking Republican on the senate Foreign Relation Commitee (Richard Lugar) advises the president to change the course in Iraq. By him saying that it shows the lack of support of the republicans on the issue of the war in Iraq. This shows when "Republican support for President Bush's Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq "very soon." Lugar wants to avoid more damages to the United States military. He says that "avoid further damage to America's military readiness and long-term national security.” He also said that the national securities have lost interest in Iraq (Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond”).
The Senator said he hasn’t seen any evidence that Iraqis will make a change in their government even if the U.S. makes changes in their politics and economics (he sees "no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy." So he meant that there is no point of the United States being in Iraq. The U.S locating in Iraq is just putting stress on them and is going to have a damaging result to the military strength. The employment of the troops is also minimizing.
The point of this article is that Senator Lugar has a negative attitude toward how the United States troops are doing in Iraq. He wants President Bush to change his strategy concerning Iraq. The troops being in Iraq is not doing any good.
This article is worth reading if you want to how the Iraqi war is affecting the troops and national security.